[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-13 12:59:09 --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-13 12:59:09 EST --- Imported and built. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-01-12 05:58:03 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dmg2img Short Description: Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files Owners: lkundrak Branches: f15 f16 el6 el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2012-01-12 21:01:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Lubomir, I think you forgot to set fedora-cvs flag to ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-12 21:50:25 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752
--- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-01-08 18:10:24 EST ---
Thank you for your review.
Updated packages:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/dmg2img.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/dmg2img-1.6.2-2.el6.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #3)
Some issues I see:
1. I think license should be GPLv2+ and MIT. Since the COPYING file included
in the upstream tarball contains GPLv2 I think we should use GPLv2+ instead
of GPL+.
No. Comment is what decides and author obviously removed the version
intentionally.
2. As noted by Richard in comment #1, BuildRequires: openssl-devel is
required to build vfdecrypt
Fixed.
3. Dist tag in release field should be %{?dist} instead of %{dist}
Fixed.
4. Unless you're packaging for EPEL 5, I recommend you:
Remove the BuildRoot tag
Use make instead of %{__make}
Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %install section
Remove the %clean section
Remove %defattr from the %files section
I want el5 builds to work and will probably be submitting the package for el5.
I changed the %make macro for make though.
5. The dmg2img-1.6.2-nostrip.patch already used in the patch and the patch I
attached both work to produce non empty debuginfo packages. I think my version
has a better chance of being accepted in a future upstream version but that
may
just be wishful thinking.
I believe conditional stripping is not a good idea. If upstream accepts your
patch, I'll gladly drop mine though.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 --- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-01-03 10:36:04 EST --- Ping! Is the requester still interested in this review request? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 --- Comment #2 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2011-12-22 06:31:33 EST --- Created attachment 549174 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=549174 [PATCH] don't strip binaries This patch adds a STRIP variable to dmg2img's Makefile. You can build with make STRIP=0 to produce unstripped binaries and non empty debuginfo packages I just emailed this patch to dmg2img's author as listed in the README file, Jean-Pierre Demailly demai...@fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752
Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||scottt...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|scottt...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2011-12-22 07:10:48 EST ---
Some issues I see:
1. I think license should be GPLv2+ and MIT. Since the COPYING file included
in the upstream tarball contains GPLv2 I think we should use GPLv2+ instead
of GPL+.
2. As noted by Richard in comment #1, BuildRequires: openssl-devel is
required to build vfdecrypt
3. Dist tag in release field should be %{?dist} instead of %{dist}
4. Unless you're packaging for EPEL 5, I recommend you:
Remove the BuildRoot tag
Use make instead of %{__make}
Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %install section
Remove the %clean section
Remove %defattr from the %files section
5. The dmg2img-1.6.2-nostrip.patch already used in the patch and the patch I
attached both work to produce non empty debuginfo packages. I think my version
has a better chance of being accepted in a future upstream version but that may
just be wishful thinking.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Unless BuildRequires: openssl-devel is added to the spec, it won't build in
mock.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
I recommend removing the BuildRoot tag.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
As noted above I think the License should be GPLv2+ and MIT.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
Package installs if the missing BuildRequires is fixed.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Requires are correct if the missing BuildRequires is fixed.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint output:
dmg2img.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Uncompress - Uncompressed,
Compression, Compressor
dmg2img.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -
uncompressed, compression, compressor
dmg2img.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmg - mg, deg, dig
dmg2img.x86_64: W:
[Bug 749752] Review Request: dmg2img - Uncompress the Apple compressed disk image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749752 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-11-12 15:18:50 EST --- Are you interested in a review swap? I need the following reviewed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753453 Here's my initial review: 1. You're missing a BuildRequires: openssl-devel 2. Unless it's required for EL (I'm a Fedora guy) using macros for basic commands is discouraged. Just use make instead of the macro for make. Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
